Received: from localhost ([::1]:37820 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eZ3uM-0001R5-9b; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 16:06:18 -0800 Received: from mail-vk0-f45.google.com ([209.85.213.45]:45236) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eZ3to-0001On-K0 for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 16:05:46 -0800 Received: by mail-vk0-f45.google.com with SMTP id o16so10512456vke.12 for ; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 16:05:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=OAqldiVoab9kMxcCFjdhU1jQR237Bs08ExSWWxN0yRs=; b=qOwYXgMT5Yh6X9olx5b4ok/whYMcriswMdG1S3cQtw1JepRjGH2Ukm3dfTmyY1UrOY MkZEaevtMyxaq0i3rqVDm9Z/wh1a+8GnDphTKQhvNjuNJtXbJdI/fVphpx7Fya4/EMEr auhHz2Toq6TFL3zfzT/1ADFz49QWsQhozCPh/KIk5/CVgE59HN9EIjPO0boRD9uCTukt qvPhdR6aeZmOr0+ke7kfAnfvo09guwpWZnOkxkajzIQkIlcsF+ffeOanopIP6bHARPK4 3UId/bW6IKP8dYDy0ek7scWIPdtR8eby7v6+h66WOxoB+apogEndn3DDuCK03ikX8wph Yd7Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=OAqldiVoab9kMxcCFjdhU1jQR237Bs08ExSWWxN0yRs=; b=pgNr2JNMie9xy/mzo0tjiF87s9Ei5yiX3XkEfwwqegvs8+4M3/4EDLxpZ9c4sfNBAG Y9pM/JaOb8h/8kdRF7x+8sA2z4Np8BsIvBJnXWwl3WUiGUraiON6dW+LEL/Qke5mkYb6 f7gYTMcdcZkOk48GA/pPeX5yK1nQGNJ4GJCek4127qrBC75G4+sn7NoQXc3ow9UcpysF QJMCx0FHOflpCb6oG1XOUZh+aul7Yq9D0Kqr7XMRnIfJbe+yGnbjCg7Jpl0LXJNp25b1 cgPa9UghIAzy3vcpA7yUnV8NEONH4OcJTdQb9KjHxjti0wekQhJcvbMKrzJGWd5Qrgq1 35uw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcP97jEcbDY17SX3LBAMsr85DnHLCMcfbZdiuGSIHEB0+YU79u/ TYkpQ30gY2LKAfyVjkMhOPclrRBS80L+xHVk5y0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosDkEIEQ3gdOyu6mbNXYajX2NHRN1F0TK03f8cselqq+4+EsBb3tvIS4VaM6u3P9UG1e/h0fxOKq/5kKHekcjw= X-Received: by 10.31.155.82 with SMTP id d79mr15702849vke.119.1515542737479; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 16:05:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 16:05:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 16:05:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <92D76729-D752-4738-BF24-2D5A6A0ACD4F@gmail.com> <0c93ad4b-af16-779b-229c-be364311fe23@selpahi.de> <20BF77A3-4FF6-4423-A493-61D1D22230C2@gmail.com> <2f305760-8dd9-79f4-2951-f7bf7d357616@selpahi.de> <29373617-d2a3-a6e3-27d3-6b457141bf11@selpahi.de> From: Creative Care Services Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 19:05:36 -0500 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.5 X-Spam_score_int: -14 X-Spam_bar: - Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Unfinished Business: BPFK X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2194503251026285489==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============2194503251026285489== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11425afa826ed6056260ca9e" --001a11425afa826ed6056260ca9e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is Cowen's edition available online? For me the issue will be accessing the newer version since the original sits proudly in my bookcase. For most I expect the issue is the opposite. In any case we are faced first with questions of how we want the LLG to function. Once we have a clearer path then, if the path includes a more gradients lojban then we can discuss what standard we will use as a base. .karis. On Jan 9, 2018 02:40, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > > > 2018-01-09 4:08 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services : > >> >> >> On Jan 8, 2018 02:58, "Gleki Arxokuna" >> wrote: >> >> It seems there are several long time participants who seek >> backward-compatible stable Lojban. Like Lojban being documented and base= d >> on CLL. >> But those members do not participate in BPFK activities, and since BPFK >> has no rules such participation would be fruitless anyway. >> >> Karis. I suggest that during this or next meeting we/you/Someone propose >> an official policy on this stable variant of Lojban. >> >> E.g. >> 1. confirm that CLL is the basement >> 2. select policy for rolling back deteriorations of Lojban done in >> Robin's edition of CLL back to the original Cowan's CLL >> 3. fix obvious mistypes (mostly in English text) of CLL >> 4. confirm that this corrected CLL is the basement >> >> >> This makes sense, though it will probably involve discussion of whether >> Robin's edition changes are deterioration or not. >> > > Well, we can't just approve CLL without reading it first. > Robin's edition added lots of new information to CLL mechanically without > further analysis. This could (and in my opinion did) introduce lots of ne= w > internal contradictions between older (Cowan's) parts of CLL and "Robin's= " > ones. > > > >> .karis. >> >> 2018-01-07 9:25 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Services = : >> >>> I want to respond to a few of the comments made by DerSaidin and some o= f >>> the material to which these comments were made. >>> >>> On Jan 4, 2018 00:39, "DerSaidin" wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> I'm not an LLG member, I asked to join this list as an observer a few >>> years ago. >>> >>> >>> > I need reliable references for my future Lojbanic works. Actually, >>> there is not a big problem about the CLL because it is already publishe= d in >>> the forms of printed and digital book. I wish only that the identical f= ree >>> documents were managed by reliable archivists. As for the BPFK document= s, I >>> have more trouble with them because they are unstable contents and plac= ed >>> on a website managed by unreliable people, i.e. anyone who have account= to >>> edit the pages. >>> >>> > Throughout all these years the community has known about Lojban's >>> problems and shortcomings, yet the same community chose time and again = to >>> let some crazy rules about a "baseline" ruin any chance of progress. >>> Respecting those people's wish for baseline conformity, we are now not = much >>> further than we were then. Not only did it stifle progress, those same >>> people didn't even stay around to keep using their "saved" Lojban. It w= as >>> all a waste of time. >>> >>> >>> Actually, no. There are at least three people who have been involved >>> with this language for decades participating in this meeting. We haven'= t >>> abandoned the language and we are all involved before the original >>> publication of CLL, to give you a time frame. LLG meetings (Members ' a= nd >>> Board) included discussions of the problems with the language and effor= ts >>> to fix them. >>> >>> Certainly lojban has problems, and one of them is limited number of >>> people learning lojban to any level of usability, much less any fluency= . >>> The baseline was one aspect of efforts to answer the basic question, "W= ill >>> lojban be substantially the same long enough for it to be worth learnin= g. >>> Whether efforts to stick to it should have lasted as long as they did, = a >>> shorter time, or a longer one has little agreement across lojbanistan. >>> >>> >>> Some people want Lojban to be stable (no changes, only minor >>> clarifications and improvements to explanations). >>> Some people want Lojban to be further developed (substantial changes, >>> make the language more logical, fix issues, etc). >>> >>> >>> >>> > Article 2 Section 1. Purpose: The Logical Language Group, Inc. is >>> established to promote the scientific study of the relationships betwee= n >>> language, thought and human culture; to investigate the nature of langu= age >>> and to determine the requirements for an artificially-engineered natura= l >>> language; to implement and experiment with such a language... >>> >>> Both positions are valid and reasonable and useful for accomplishing th= e >>> LLG's purpose. >>> Lojban being a stable language is useful for learning and using and >>> experimenting with the language - furthering the LLG's purpose. >>> Lojban being further developed is useful for building substantial >>> improvements to the language - also furthering the LLG's purpose. >>> But it seems these options are mutually exclusive, Lojban cannot take >>> both. >>> >>> >>> I don't see that those of us seeking a more stable language necessarily >>> want to prevent significant change all together, but want change by >>> evolution rather than pronouncement or because one or a few people thin= k >>> their new way is the way everyone should now speak. >>> >>> >>> My impression is there is disagreement and confusion and doubt and hope >>> over which option Lojban has/is/will take. >>> This is causing frustration: people wanting development, trying to >>> implement improvements, are blocked in the name of stability and feel l= ike >>> they're wasting their time. >>> This is causing doubt: people wanting stability are unsure if their wor= k >>> using the language will be invalidated by changes to the language in th= e >>> future. >>> This is causing conflict: people are trying to pull Lojban in their >>> preferred direction. >>> >>> >>> True. >>> >>> I think the And Rosta quote selpahi gave also identifies this conflict. >>> This conflict makes everyone (on both sides), annoyed, frustrated, and >>> unmotivated. This conflict also make beginners confused and discourage= d. >>> This conflict also cultivate personal conflicts within the community. >>> Since Lojban is the major (only?) focus of the LLG, these problems >>> threaten the LLG too. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think the path forward is: >>> >>> 1) Reexamine, clarify, and reaffirm the purpose/goals of the LLG. >>> - Do all LLG members have the same understanding? >>> - Do all LLG members agree with them? >>> >>> 2) Reevaluate how closely the LLG is tied to Lojban, and how Lojban fit= s >>> into the LLG goals. >>> >>> 3) Decide if Lojban should be forever stable (maybe do development >>> elsewhere) or continuously developed. >>> >>> >>> Forever stable isn't the goal I've heard from anyone and I think you're >>> describing the conflict in opposing rather than significant ways. >>> Continuously developed in a gradual way over time vs changing significa= nt >>> portions of it all at once is how I would describe the conflict. >>> >>> - This may drive away people who disagree, but it empowers everyone who >>> remains. >>> >>> 4) Maybe consider what other work the LLG would like to do. >>> - Should the LLG make a fork Lojban for ongoing development? >>> - Can the LLG learn from other logical languages? >>> - Can the LLG do work more meta than developing a particular logical >>> language? >>> - Can the LLG do any work that would benefit all current/future logical >>> language? >>> - Can the LLG explore/document options and design decisions in logical >>> language? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 2:32 AM selpahi wrote: >>> >>>> On 26.12.2017 17:17, selpahi wrote: >>>> > IRC user PoroCYon just plotted this graph for me, which shows how mu= ch >>>> > Lojban was spoken on each day of the last ~14 years: >>>> > >>>> > https://pcy.ulyssis.be/miscfiles/plot.png >>>> > >>>> > 2017 is clearly much lower than the years before it. >>>> >>>> Also, when I say IRC, I mean IRC + Telegram + Discord + Slack, as they >>>> are all connected by bridges. This is the overall amount of spoken >>>> (written) Lojban. >>>> >>> >>> These are still not all the written or spoken instances, and besides >>> fluctuations should be expected and have happened before. >>> >>> --- >>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr=C3=BCft= . >>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Llg-members mailing list >>>> Llg-members@lojban.org >>>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Llg-members mailing list >>> Llg-members@lojban.org >>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Llg-members mailing list >>> Llg-members@lojban.org >>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Llg-members mailing list >> Llg-members@lojban.org >> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Llg-members mailing list >> Llg-members@lojban.org >> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --001a11425afa826ed6056260ca9e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Is Cowen's edition available online? For me the issue= will be accessing the newer version since the original sits proudly in my = bookcase. For most I expect the issue is the opposite.
In any case we are faced first with questions of h= ow we want the LLG to function. Once we have a clearer path then, if the pa= th includes a more gradients lojban then we can discuss what standard we wi= ll use as a base.

.karis= .=C2=A0

On Jan 9, 2018 02:40, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:


2018-01-09 4:08 GMT+03:= 00 Creative Care Services <comcaresvcs@gmail.com>:


On Jan 8, 2018 02:58, "Gl= eki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems there are several long time participants who seek bac= kward-compatible stable Lojban. Like Lojban being documented and based on C= LL.
But those members do not participate in BPFK activities, and since = BPFK has no rules such participation would be fruitless anyway.
<= br>
Karis. I suggest that during this or next meeting we/you/Someone pr= opose an official policy on this stable variant of Lojban.

E.g.
1. confirm that CLL is the basement
2. select policy for rolling back deteriorations of Lojban done in Robin&#= 39;s edition of CLL back to the original Cowan's CLL
3. fix o= bvious mistypes (mostly in English text) of CLL
4. confirm that t= his corrected CLL is the basement

This makes sense, tho= ugh it will probably involve discussion of whether Robin's edition chan= ges are deterioration or not.=C2=A0

=
Well, we can't just approve CLL without reading it first.
Robin's edition added lots of new information to CLL mechanically wit= hout further analysis. This could (and in my opinion did) introduce lots of= new internal contradictions between older (Cowan's) parts of CLL and &= quot;Robin's" ones.



.karis.

2018-01-07 9:25 GMT+03:00 Creative Care Se= rvices <comcaresvcs@gmail.com>:
I want to respond to a few of the comments made by DerSaidin and = some of the material to which these comments were made.=C2=A0

On Jan 4= , 2018 00:39, "DerSaidin" <dersaidin@dersaidin.net> wrote:
He= llo,
I'm not an LLG member, I asked to join this list as an o= bserver a few years ago.


> I nee= d reliable references for my future Lojbanic works. Actually, there is not = a big problem about the CLL because it is already published in the forms of= printed and digital book. I wish only that the identical free documents we= re managed by reliable archivists. As for the BPFK documents, I have more t= rouble with them because they are unstable contents and placed on a website= managed by unreliable people, i.e. anyone who have account to edit the pag= es.

> Th= roughout all these years the community has known about Lojban's problem= s and shortcomings, yet the same community chose time and again to let some= crazy rules about a "baseline" ruin any chance of progress. Resp= ecting those people's wish for baseline conformity, we are now not much= further than we were then. Not only did it stifle progress, those same peo= ple didn't even stay around to keep using their "saved" Lojba= n. It was all a waste of time.

Actually, no.= There are at least three people who have been involved with this language = for decades participating in this meeting. We haven't abandoned the lan= guage and we are all involved before the original publication of CLL, to gi= ve you a time frame. LLG meetings (Members ' and Board) included discus= sions of the problems with the language and efforts to fix them.=C2=A0

Certainly lojban has problem= s, and one of them is limited number of people learning lojban to any level= of usability, much less any fluency. The baseline was one aspect of effort= s to answer the basic question, "Will lojban be substantially the same= long enough for it to be worth learning. Whether efforts to stick to it sh= ould have lasted as long as they did, a shorter time, or a longer one has l= ittle agreement across lojbanistan.=C2=A0

=

<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">
Some people want Lojban to= be stable (no changes, only minor clarifications and improvements to expla= nations).
Some people want Lojban to be further develop= ed (substantial changes, make the language more logical, fix issues, etc).<= /div>



> Article 2 Secti= on 1. Purpose: The Logical Language Group, Inc. is established to promote t= he scientific study of the relationships between language, thought and huma= n culture; to investigate the nature of language and to determine the requi= rements for an artificially-engineered natural language; to implement and e= xperiment with such a language...

Both positions a= re valid and reasonable and useful for accomplishing the LLG's purpose.=
Lojban being a stable language is useful for learning and using = and experimenting with the language - furthering the LLG's purpose.
Lojban being further developed is useful for building substantial im= provements to the language - also furthering the LLG's purpose.
But it seems these options are mutually exclusive, Lojban cannot take bo= th.

I don't see that those of us seeking a mor= e stable language necessarily want to prevent significant change all togeth= er, but want change by evolution rather than pronouncement or because one o= r a few people think their new way is the way everyone should now speak.=C2= =A0


My impression is there is di= sagreement and confusion and doubt and hope over which option Lojban has/is= /will take.
This is causing frustration: people wanting devel= opment, trying to implement improvements, are blocked in the name of stabil= ity and feel like they're wasting their time.
This is causing= doubt: people wanting stability are unsure if their work using the languag= e will be invalidated by changes to the language in the future.
T= his is causing conflict: people are trying to pull Lojban in their preferre= d direction.

True.=C2=A0

I think the And Rosta= quote selpahi gave also identifies this conflict.
This confl= ict makes everyone (on both sides), annoyed, frustrated, and unmotivated.= =C2=A0 This conflict also make beginners confused and discouraged.
This conflict also cultivate personal conflicts within the community.=
Since Lojban is the major (only?) focus of the LLG, these proble= ms threaten the LLG too.



I think the path forward is:

1) Reexamine= , clarify, and reaffirm the purpose/goals of the LLG.
- Do all LL= G members have the same understanding?
- Do all LLG members agree= with them?

2) Reevaluate how closely the LLG is t= ied to Lojban, and how Lojban fits into the LLG goals.

=
3) Decide if Lojban should be forever stable (maybe do development els= ewhere) or continuously developed.

Forever stable isn't t= he goal I've heard from anyone and I think you're describing the co= nflict in opposing rather than significant ways. Continuously developed in = a gradual way over time vs changing significant portions of it all at once = is how I would describe the conflict.=C2=A0
=
- This may drive= away people who disagree, but it empowers everyone who remains.
=
4) Maybe consider what other work the LLG would like to do.<= /div>
- Should the LLG make a fork Lojban for ongoing development?
- Can the LLG learn from other logical languages?
- Ca= n the LLG do work more meta than developing a particular logical language?<= /div>
- Can the LLG do any work that would benefit all current/future l= ogical language?
- Can the LLG explore/document options and desig= n decisions in logical language?


<= /div>

=
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 2:32 AM selpahi <selpahi@selpahi.de> wrote:=
On 26.12.2017 17:17, selpahi wrote= :
> IRC user PoroCYon just plotted this graph for me, which shows how much=
> Lojban was spoken on each day of the last ~14 years:
>
> https://pcy.ulyssis.be/miscfiles/plot.png
>
> 2017 is clearly much lower than the years before it.

Also, when I say IRC, I mean IRC + Telegram + Discord + Slack, as they
are all connected by bridges. This is the overall amount of spoken
(written) Lojban.

These are still not all the written or spoken i= nstances, and besides fluctuations should be expected and have happened bef= ore.=C2=A0

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr=C3=BCft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members

_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members




_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members



_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members



_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members



_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members

--001a11425afa826ed6056260ca9e-- --===============2194503251026285489== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --===============2194503251026285489==--